Poll: The Greatest Assyrian King of the 7th Century BCE

[John7755 يوحنا]

This poll is in response to the current update to my recent Assyrian timeline, wherein the 7th century BCE has finally come to a close and within that period of time, four Assyrian kings have ruled the land. My question for the forum is in consideration of the timeline, which of the four is the greatest in your opinion?

Choices:

Sennacherib: A favorite of the eunuchs and more 'new' militaristic branch. Something of a renaissance king, he is noted for his grand projects in Nineveh, Kalhu, Dur-Sharrukin and so forth. Also, he is known for waging near continuous warfare, mustering the entire empire's resources as opposed to just Assyria's and for subduing many rebellions. However, he is also reviled by the traditional priesthood, the people of Karduniash (Babylonia) and by the nobility. He was reviled for his unceremonious actions, such as admitting weaknesses and his general secular approach to claiming victories in battle (instead of charging victories to the Great Gods). His discourse neared divine status and in that regard, he reminds a reader of Naram-Sin, the great Akkadian king. His greatest stain is the destruction he wrought upon Babylon in 689-688 BCE, which was the supposed reason for his murder by his sons and wives. 705-681 BCE

Assur-Hadon: The son of Sennacherib, his brothers and mother assassinated his father in 681 BCE. Assur-Hadon defeated his brothers using his father's allies, who resented the assassins and rallied under Assur-Hadon. He ascended to the throne under the promise that he would restore Babylon and the great temples that Sennacherib left to ruin in his sacrilegious reign. Assur-Hadon did these and became beloved by scribes and priests and by Babylon. His reign would be one of victories (conquest of Egypt, conquest of Media and Parthia; submission of the Cimmerians and Scythians), but also of lingering issues, namely his inaction to destroy Elam. Further, his splitting of the country between his children would cause massive issues later. 681-669 BCE

Assurbanipal: Ascending to the throne peacefully, the first in a century, Assurbanipal was the youngest son of Assur-Hadon, while the middle son inherited Babylon. Assurbanipal was supported by the Median confederates and by Urartu, who signed a treaty with Assur-Hadon, vowing to support the young heir once he reached maturity. Assurbanipal's reign was in its early years mired in victorious actions against Elam and the rebel Gambulu tribes. As a young king, he conquered all of Northern Arabia and his field marshal reconquered Egypt, after his father had lost it. His conquests brought the empire to its absolute height in size, yet much of this was not his action alone. His middle reign was composed of a massive civil war between his elder brother Shamash-Suma-Ukin, the Sukkalu (viceroy of Babylon), whom he defeated and vanquished. Assurbanipal would end his life and Assyria at a relative peace before amounting to a resounding defeat to the Scythians in 628 BCE and his death. 669-627 BCE

Sinsharishkun: Ascending in 627 BCE, his reign was covered in massive rebellions in Babylon, which he defeated in 622 BCE. Afterward, Sinsharishkun reconquered Arabia and proceeded to enact many reforms and became a beloved icon for much of the scholarly class. Later, he would essentially conquer Urartu, reconquered Tabal-Quwe and conquered all of Media, before dying of illness as Media erupted in rebellion, leaving a troubled succession crisis in his death. Despite this, Sinsharishkun provided a traditionalist reform, new customs of court relation and also weathered a near possible destruction of the empire. 627-603 BCE


To get a better understanding, I would suggest reading the recent timeline update, which is a large recap of the 7th century BCE in my timeline. Hope that this is enjoyable and gets one to thinking, as all four of these rulers were great kings.

 

[Anawrahta]

Tbf Im unsure on some what to characterize as foolish vs bold, or haste vs misgovernment. Many of these emperors were mixed bags imho.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Tbf Im unsure on some what to characterize as foolish vs bold, or haste vs misgovernment. Many of these emperors were mixed bags imho.

Surely, but whom did you select? Assuming that you did vote...

 

[Anawrahta]

Surely, but whom did you select? Assuming that you did vote...

I picked Sennacherib... I've always wondered if he had plans for a provincial system in place but never picked up on it due to his brashness. In some cases he seems rather innovative for his times, in others brash .

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I picked Sennacherib... I've always wondered if he had plans for a provincial system in place but never picked up on it due to his brashness. In some cases he seems rather innovative for his times, in others brash .

What do you mean by a provincial system? Do you mean over Karduniash in particular or across the empire as a whole? It should be noted, that in some regards, a provincial system may entail a level of decentralization that may be unsavory. Assyria was already quite absolutist in its ruling methodology to areas outside of Assyria-Karduniash-Sumer. Yet were also fine with permitting local rulers, but with the pretext of spying upon them constantly with qepu.

As to Sennacherib's brashness, I would not term it brashness, but generally it seems Sennacherib was to a degree irreverent and realistic as a king. If Sennacherib was particularly brash, we would have expected him to have destroyed Babylon immediately after either the second rebellion of Mardukinapal II or at least after Nergal-Mushzesib was placed upon the throne. Sennacherib's son even was beheaded by the Elamites in Babylon and yet after capturing Babylon, with his dead son within the midst, he still was unwilling to destroy the city. It would seem that after some decade of campaigning and battling Elam and the Western Semitic rebel elements, he decided to destroy the city and refuse Elam an avenue for subversion and likewise, give his army a much needed release and take of loot (mind you, Sennacherib had not been able to provide sufficient loot in his campaigns from 695-689, the looting of Babylon surely was the only way to appease his grunt soldiery and also to appease his eunuchs and generally non-noble and non-scholarly military leaders). So it is more of, Sennacherib was extremely analytical and prudent, to a degree that the scribes and Assyrian nobles reviled.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Allow me to make an argument for Assur-Hadon as the greatest of the Assyrian monarchs in my atl (remember, Sinsharishkun is a great monarch of 23 years, rather than otl's king who was defeated by the Anti-Assyrian coalition).

Assur-Hadon, if you should take time to read the recap I wrote in my atl, was a king that within 12 years, was able to accomplish many military actions. Firstly, Assur-Hadon as a king renewed the famed Urartu-Assyrian alliance and took the initiative against the Cimmerians and the Scythians. In 679-678 and 675 BCE, Assur-Haddon defeated the Scytho-Cimmerians and for around 40 years, these conglomerates paid Assyria tribute. In the same instance, Assur-Hadon was able to conquer all of Media and Drangiana, enforcing a vast system of vassals and allies in these regions; all prior to the conquest of Egypt in 672-669 BCE. This is also part of Assur-Hadon's amazing domestic record: rebuilding Babylon and famously reconstructing many temples within the region, including fort-temples at Nippur-Duranki and so forth.

Assur-Hadon, according to Akkadian conceptions, was the perfect king in almost every respect. Enormously pious, he took his omens every day according to custom, did actions only whence the omens fit the agenda (even delaying his Egyptian invasion by months due to omens, this is oddly a point which Assyrian-Babylonian scribes saw as an enormous value). Assur-Hadon, readily admitted his humanity and his weaknesses and constantly referred to his victories as battles won by the Great Gods, something his father refused to do.

Additionally, Akkadian conceptions of kingship required a Great King to do the following:

1. Wage war every year or two, depending upon the omens. The Great Gods had mandated for the people of 'good breed' to wage war upon those recalcitrant creatures, idols and objects that infested the world around them. From early days, the kings of this region, waged war upon their neighbors, not for the sake of necessarily capturing lands, but for a religious mandate.

The Great Gods created the world and men for their enjoyment and pleasure. The goal of man and of the Akkadian king, is the conquest of the universe-world so as to give glory to the Great Gods, the true kings of the lands. In fact, the conception that the Assyrian king was simply an earthly conduit for the conquest and subjugation of the things of the world for the glory of the Great Gods, was taken to utmost seriousness.

2. To build and repair religious and otherwise holy sites across the Sumero-Akkadian world and to a degree, the Hurrian world, in the case of Assyria. The first, was for the king to build temples that in the mind of the people, was offerings to the Great Gods, these temples were built by the Great King and he would 'invite' the Great God to enter it as his/her citadel and house. Kings were to build these were needed and especially in newly conquered lands, signifying the extent to which the servants of the Great Gods had expanded the glory of the Great Gods. Repairs is obvious, this has to do with seeing to the maintenance of great buildings of religious nature.

3. To perform the religious ceremonies, both festivals, religious devotion and observation of omens-zodiacs. The ceremonies refer to general custom signs of devotion to the Great Gods. Festivals were that the Great King would be required to attend every major festival of the Great Gods or send a representative. Devotion being that the Great King refers to his legitimacy and rites as derived directly from the Great Gods and not from his action or the action of his supporters, human or supernatural. Adherence of omens, refers to the Great King seeking through all types of omens (both astral, dreams and entrails of animals) the necessary action on major issues; wars, buildings, etc....

4. The maintenance of the irrigation and otherwise infrastructure of Mesopotamia. The Great Gods designated the King of the Universe (Akkadian title for the true king if you will, who has the mandate of the Great Gods) not only to conquer the world, but to be the 'gardener of the lands' and this was taken seriously. To maintain infrastructure was necessary for a king to remain legitimate. In that degree, the Assyrian king was to be mimicking the Great Gods, Dagon, Naboo and Haddon. Haddon, the God of the storm and floods, the canal inspector if you will who both destroyed and provided relief. Naboo, who was the god of writing, civilization and records, who represented the concept of the building of new cities and creating 'civilization' as the Lord of the people who hath learned the type. Dagon, as the Lord of the Harvest and the Master of Multiplication, the god of wealth; his relation to this concept is self-evident.

5. The acquisition of resources. Namely, represented by the merchant class and broadly the entire society, the acquisition of a vast array of resources by the Great King was seen as a sign of legitimacy. Many cases of Akkadian kings using an epithet of 'He Hath Arrived with Exotic Goods' and this was attributed to all the Great Gods who would have contributed to this act. The Great Gods were said to be pleased by the bringing of fine goods to adorn their peoples and to fill their coffers and 'power them.' Further, Assyrian kings took massive numbers of slaves and loot, which were distributed as charity or rimutu unto the populaces, this of course was a beloved and significant practice.

Considering these stances, we may begin to grade each king according to Assyrian-Akkadian standards:

Sennacherib:

1. Except for his later years, which was still seeing wars, but not massive campaigns, he more or less achieved this. He subjugated the Phyrgian remnant state, took tribute from Lydia and subjugated the Cimmerian peoples, while maintaining rule over Cappadocia, Tabal and Quwe. He also regained revenge for his fallen father, who was slew in Cappadocia, by looting the Cimmerians and other peoples in their vicinity. Check

2. Sennacherib totally failed at this section. Other than devoting temples to Assur, Ninurta and his favored deity Sin, he neglected the other temples. Even at times, destroying existing temples, such as the temples to Naboo and Marduk in Babylon-Borsippa-Sippar. According to Assur-Hadon, he would see to the repairs left undone, indicating a level of neglect during Sennacherib's reign. Fail

3. Sennacherib is noted for his irreverence in all matters of religion, aside from with the Great God Sin. He is known to have been somewhat focused on his earthly endeavors, in a very Naram-Sin like mentality. He even committed the great sin of claiming victories as his own, rather than of the Great Gods. There are many cases like this though in his case, his entire reign was filled with these sort of breaches of religious decorum. Fail

4. Sennacherib seems to have maintained these and even expanded road systems in the north, so as to travel rapidly to Cappadocia. Though he waged devastating wars in Karduniash, it does not seem that the irrigation and canals declined. Check

5. The merchants may have been massive supporters of Sennacherib, however, Sennacherib's acquisition of resources from exterior enemies and resettling of trade routes in the north, may not offset his destruction of Babylon. Sennacherib destroyed Babylon most likely as part of a pragmatic military decision and seeking to enforce stability in Karduniash. Neutral

2-2-1
----------------------------------
Assur-Haddon

1. He spent nearly every year of his reign at war. Even his regnal years not explicitly military in nature, had a war. Such as the regnal year of 681-680 (characterized by the reconstruction of Babylon), though a peaceful year, Assur-Hadon invaded the Gambulu and the Elamite kingdom. His wars were also always successful, defeating every foe Assyria engaged decisively, aside from the case of Egypt, which was decisively defeated, yet was running on fumes by 669 BCE, when Assur-Hadon passed of his illness. Check

2. Assur-Hadon was prodigious as a builder and devotee of the temples. Nearly every major temple had some level of repairs done during the reign of Assur-Hadon. He even enacted complete repairs and amnesties and reparations to any who were wronged by his father's irreverence. This endeared him to the many priests and populaces of the country, who depicted him as a righteous king, descendant of Sargon. Check

3. A pious king to a fault, Assur-Hadon rarely ever-claimed anything as his except his fragility in illness between 673-669 BCE. He took omens near constantly and was devoted to the Great Gods, even touring the country and spending an entire year visiting and performing religious duties and festivals. Sending his son, Shamash-Shuma-Ukin to perform duties as king in Babylon, was also a major boon, as it was a respectable medium for the people of city. Check

4. More or less the same as Sennacherib. Check

5. The reconstruction of Babylon, the conquest of Egypt, the conquest of Media and solidification of the golden peace with Urartu, made him certainly a mercantile king. Check

5-0-0
-------------------------------
Assurbanipal

1. A hit or miss.... While his war with Elam is remembered well, he is also noted for sending generals to do his wars for him, especially in Egypt. It is said that the son inherits from the father and Assurbanipal inherited an incredible situation from his father in terms of geopolitics. Assur-Hadon sent his main rival, his elder brother to Babylon as its king, while he forced the Medes, Scythians, Cimmerians and Urartu to sign a contract supporting his son to the throne and should he be challenged on the throne, they were to protect him. Such a situation of stability, was granted by his father, most surely.

His war against his elder brother is no great act though. However his wars against the Qedar and Nabtu are important and surely commendable. However, he neglected war with the Cimmerians and other northern conglomerates, until he was advanced in age and weaker in age. Neutral

2. Similar to Assur-Hadon, Assurbanipal took his roles as guardian and carpenter of temples as of great import. Much of his final years was spent building walls and temples. Check

3. An extremely pious king, similar to Assur-Hadon, perhaps to an even greater extent. Check

4. Same as the above^ Check

5. Assurbanipal was perhaps the best of those spoken of in regards to the mercantile interest and acquisition of resources. Though, he ultimately left much for his son to have to conquer, as he did not 'finish' the 'job' in Qedar. Check

4-0-1
----------------------------
Sinsharishkun

1. Spent the better part of his reign at war, including in the north, east and in crushing Karduniashi rebellions. Check

2. Repaired many temples and devoted himself to the temples at Harran, Kalhu and others. Reconstructed the Great Temple to Ninurta in Kalhu after it was destroyed by the Scythians under Assurbanipal in 628 BCE. Check

3. Less pious than his predecessors, rejected the omens to invade Egypt instead of Media, gaining the wrath of the scribal class. Generally, Sinsharishkun was a mixture in his support, but similar to his predecessor, Sennacherib, his primary base was in eunuchs and soldiery, who were his loyalists. As such, he took a more rationalist approach to actions and courses, similar to Sennacherib. His devotion to Sin in later years, also carries as certain interest for the readers. Fail

4. Same as those above ^ Check

5. The creation of two new protectorates with the object of the expansion of the frontier and the acquisition of resources, especially of camels cannot be underestimated. During his reign, Arabia was brought closer into the realm and its valuable resource of camels, which rapidly became more popular in the empire, allowing better transit of resources. His creation of new reforms and providing of greater numbers of northern deportees for labor. Check

4-0-1
----------------------------


Hence, my position that Assur-Hadon was the greatest of the Assyrian kings, at least to a large degree. His reign is the only one not mired in a major issue.

Sennacherib was assassinated and his death brought a great six-way succession war. Further, his pragmatic destruction of Babylon and other temple cities harmed Assyrian legitimacy, made the empire more unstable and provoked rebellions that began after Sennacherib passed (that his son had to put down).

Assurbanipal neglected the northern frontiers and was defeated decisively by the Scythians. He left his son, Sinsharishkun with a precarious situation, with rebellions and around 1/4 of the country lost in only two or three years.

Sinsharishkun died in campaign, alienated his brother Assur-Uballit, causing a succession crisis and neglected the Egyptian threat. Further he made no moves to ensure peaceful transfer of power to his son, Sinbanipal, seemingly assuming that it would occur naturally.

Assur-Hadon left only one major stain upon his death, that of the looming civil war between his sons. Though, this was not terrible... For around 16 years, Shamash-Shum-Ukin (could be called Shamashugon) as king of Karduniash was more or less peaceful with Assurbanipal and the empire functioned as an effective dual-monarchy split between the two brothers, even both contributing to destruction of Elam. Only after nearly two decades did the two brothers come to blows. This is unprecedented mind you, no other prior kings ascended to the throne as peacefully as Assurbanipal and Shamashugon, Assur-Hadon even gathered assurances from the peoples surrounding his kingdom to ensure their peaceful ascension and to solve their disputes. This is as I say, unprecedented and ultimately led to the great success of Assurbanipal.

So, perhaps this may change some votes aha.

 

[Samm]

Reading your assesments does make me actually second guess my vote for Assurbanipal. It is difficult to trully judge these people by the standards of their own society without bringing our own societies standards into it (and I wonder to what extent we should do so).

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Reading your assesments does make me actually second guess my vote for Assurbanipal. It is difficult to trully judge these people by the standards of their own society without bringing our own societies standards into it (and I wonder to what extent we should do so).

It is fine to judge with the lens of the modern world. My main point though too, was that Assurbanipal ruled the empire at a territorial zenith, but a zenith we may say, that was created by Assur-Hadon.

 

[Chris Triangle]

You persuaded me. Sennacherib would have been my first choice but with hindsight, we can see that destroying Babylon so viciously was a huge mistake on the long run and it overshadows everything else he ever did, plus he was needlessly reckless when it came to religious matters. I did not know that Ashurbanipal simply sent generals to do his fighting while he stayed behind. That is... not good. It seems that Ahsur Hadon on the other hand, was both an effective warrior and an effective ruler.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

You persuaded me. Sennacherib would have been my first choice but with hindsight, we can see that destroying Babylon so viciously was a huge mistake on the long run and it overshadows everything else he ever did, plus he was needlessly reckless when it came to religious matters. I did not know that Ashurbanipal simply sent generals to do his fighting while he stayed behind. That is... not good. It seems that Ahsur Hadon on the other hand, was both an effective warrior and an effective ruler.

Assurbanipal is almost unique in the degree to which he sent others to wage his wars, it is incredible really. We know some Assyrian kings sent others to wage their wars when the war was on multiple fronts and when necessity existed. However, Assurbanipal would send generals to fight his annual campaigns and use this breach of tradition to brag of his religiosity. As was mentioned elsewhere, there are occasions where Assurbanipal claims to have received dreams from the Goddess Ishtar, who instructs him to relax and that she will lead the army of Assyria.

Such a point, though certainly a feign of piety, is an extreme breach of tradition and the scribes do not hide their disgust for such things. Even when he was young, whence his father passed, he was on his way to Egypt and instead of carrying on his father's wish for him to lead the Assyrian army into Egypt, Assurbanipal sends Sha-Naboo-Shu, the field marshal to do it while he returns to the capitol. Why Assurbanipal was this way is not entirely known. We know in his later life, he spent much time complaining of his varied issues with arthritis or his fatigue. He takes many of the tradition-breaches of his grandfather, Sennacherib but instead of doing as he did, he paints these as pious acts. In other words, not going to war himself, was the will of the Gods, while Sennacherib would have readily admitted that he did not do this or that as part of his opinion and it had nothing to do with the gods.

Anyway, Assurbanipal's frankly lax attitude especially in his last 15 years, is likely what hurt the Assyrian state in the transition phase to Sinsharishkun. Whereas in his early life, Assurbanipal simply sent his eunuchs to wage war, in later years, he simply did not wage war at all or very little, breaking the Assyrian tradition of culling dangerous elements on the border. Hence why for around 70 years after Assur-Hadon had subjugated the Cimmerians and Scythians, they had been left in relative peace and grew in numbers, power and were emboldened by a seemingly weak Assyrian king (Assurbanipal). Assurbanipal is defeated in this war according to the Babylonian texts, who mention that Assyrian soldiers and their leaders hid in their cities for fear of the Scythians.


What this tells us, is Assurbanipal to a degree mismanaged the Assyrian armies tasked to him and engendered a martial decay that derived from his unwillingness to wage war annually to build martial experience as prior Assyrian kings did. He did not embody in his later years the ideal Assyrian monarch who ruled a lean and hungry state if you will that utilized religious dogma, absolutist monarch power, vast standing armies and conscription and a series of spies and large-scale military intelligence. Rather, his later year is characterized despite its great innovation in art and so forth, by an Assyrian army cowering behind walls. Never before had Assyrian armies hid behind walls, until Assurbanipal, in olden days, Assyrian soldiers would have never considered hiding behind walls while the countryside is ravaged.

 

[Chris Triangle]

Fascinating and astonishing information. Such unprecedented behavior by a king would suggest there may have been some interesting aspects of his psyche but of course we will never be able to know exactly what was going on. Quite frankly, I am a bit surprised that he was able to maintain his rule as well as he did. He is, of course, particularly famous for destroying Susa (well, temporarily anyway) but was he even present there?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Fascinating and astonishing information. Such unprecedented behavior by a king would suggest there may have been some interesting aspects of his psyche but of course we will never be able to know exactly what was going on. Quite frankly, I am a bit surprised that he was able to maintain his rule as well as he did. He is, of course, particularly famous for destroying Susa (well, temporarily anyway) but was he even present there?

Do not be mistaken, Assurbanipal was a skilled man in many ways and a great king. However, he did have some issues with his reign that were exposed in 631-627 BCE.

Assurbanipal was there at the Battle-Siege of Susa, but not there at the battle that defeated the Elamite field army(s). Hence why the head of Teuman (king of Elam) was brought to Assurbanipal as he sat in his throne and the Elamite diplomats who resided there committed suicide upon the disgrace. Assurbanipal also went on campaign against the Qedarites after defeating his brother Shamash-Shuma-Ukin. However, the battles of Egypt, the battles against his brother, wars in other lands, were generally taken by others. However, it cannot be stressed enough, the empire that Assurbanipal ruled over, was a creation most firmly of his predecessors. Assurbanipal added only Elam and the realms of the Qedar into the empire.

His predecessors however did much:

Tiglath-Pileser III murdered the ancient (965 year old) Assyrian royalty and installed him and his brothers as kings of Assyria. He commanded a kingdom in total shambles. Civil war, invasions and a series of defeat Assyria suffered against Elam and Urartu, reduced the kingdom to only around 4-5 towns, Nineveh and a dozen or so villages along the Tigris. In a short time, Tiglath-Pileser III revived Assyria, raised a mass conscripted standign army (supposedly raising every able bodied man in his area and thrusting it against the enemies around him, especially Urartu. In his reign, Tiglath Pileser III conquered Syria, the Levant, Babylonia-Kardunaish, subjugated the Medes, Mannaea, frightened Elam and put Urartu on notice.

Shalmaneser IV was generally a poor king, though it was possibly not his fault. He faltered against Urartu and when he showed weakness, he was murdered by Sargon II.

Sargon II slew his uncle and ascended to an Assyria that was breaking into pieces. His reign would see the kingdom completely reconquer the former borders of the kingdom and extend its zone to deep parts of Anatolia (something Assyria had not done since the Late Bronze Age), conquest of Cyprus (defeating a conglomeration of Greek states), subjugated Elam into vassalage, subjugated all of Media and advanced into Parthia where he dispersed several steppe nomads and received tribute from the locals, reconquered Babylonia from the rebel Mardunkinapal II and so forth. The bordered that Sargon II is essentially the extent of the empire at the time of Assurbanipal except Assurbanipal possessed Elam as a province and ruled Egypt and Assurbanipal lacked the Anatolian possessions.

Sennacherib maintained the empire of Sargon II and continued to push his power north. However, Sennacherib spent much of his reign dealing with a resurgent Elam, but the empire under him did not lose any lands.

Assur-Hadon though, as I mentioned, conquered Egypt, moved further east than Sargon II, even arriving within the vicinity of Kwarezm, according to his annals where he built a fort to the Great Gods. It was during his rule too, that the Cimmerians and Scythians were defeated in Anatolia and Elam was pushed east. Elam even began to pay tribute to Assyria during this period under Assur-Hadon. Such was Assur-Hadon's authority over Elam, that the kingdom of Elam was forced to sign agreements promising to protect Assur-Hadon's heirs. Assur-Hadon did not only dictate Elam defend his heirs, he forced:

Qedarites-Nabut Arabs to support his sons ascension and protect them (the Qedarites continued to support Shamash-Shuma-Ukin in the Assyrian civil war of 652 BCE)
The Medes had to sign a contract to support Assurbanipal and had already been made vassals of Assyria, such that Assur-Hadon crowned each of their kings.
The Scythians and Cimmerians likewise were defeated and forced to support Assurbanipal.
Urartu was already an ally of Assyria and Assur-Hadon experienced the height of Urartu-Assyrian alliance and Urartu protected Assurbanipal in his early regime and enforced the Assyrian hegemony in Anatolia, Azerbaijan and the Caucasian mountain ranges.

Frankly, the empire that Assurbanipal ruled, was essentially the empire of Assur-Hadon....

One point that should be mentioned too, Assurbanipal was magnificent in his architectural prowess, religious piety and beloved for his grand spectacles. His peacetime activities were certainly splendid and we owe much to Assurbanipal, who built a massive library which has taught us of many things, including the a major body of Assyrian-Babylonian literature.

Another point that is frequently missed, is the dynasty in question. The dynasty of commoners that was established by Tiglath-Pileser III is known for their innovations in the Assyrian system, especially in the reigns of Sennacherib and Assurbanipal. In the Bronze Age and the entirety of the Adaside dynasty (1720-745 BCE), there was more reverence for many of the ancient traditions and customs of Assyria, customs and traditions that were most heavily degraded under Sennacherib and Assurbanipal and later in Babylon, by Nabonidus, leading to the rise of Cyrus the Great. This much is important to note, that the new dynasty that Assurbanipal was part of, was known for its 'new' nature and to a degree, the bending of time-held traditions of Assyria.

 

[Quintuplicate]

Down with Assyria! Long live the Egyptian Empire under the glorious Psamtik I!

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Down with Assyria! Long live the Egyptian Empire under the glorious Psamtik I!

Psamtik I is another great king of Egypt, certainly one of her last prior to the rise of Alexander, 250 years later. It should be noted though, Egypt only became de-jure independent from Assyria during the reign of Assur-Uballit III (during the reign of Pharaoh Necho II) in otl and in 603 in the atl, when Necho II invaded Assyria alongside Sadyattes of Lydia, both ascending to the throne in 610 BCE.

 

[Quintuplicate]

Psamtik I is another great king of Egypt, certainly one of her last prior to the rise of Alexander, 250 years later. It should be noted though, Egypt only became de-jure independent from Assyria during the reign of Assur-Uballit III (during the reign of Pharaoh Necho II) in otl and in 603 in the atl, when Necho II invaded Assyria alongside Sadyattes of Lydia, both ascending to the throne in 610 BCE.

Amasis II was also a great ruler.